Field of the Invention
The present invention generally relates to computer aided design and, more specifically, to goal-driven computer aided design workflows.
Description of the Related Art
In a conventional design workflow, a designer begins by conceptualizing geometry that reflects a set of requirements or specifications. The designer then uses a computer-aided design tool to model the conceptualized geometry. The geometry could represent a mechanical component, and electrical element, a structural member, a fluid connector, or any other type of object intended to serve some functional or aesthetic or purpose. Once the designer has modeled the geometry, a team of analysis experts performs different types of analyses to evaluate the performance of the geometry in a variety of different contexts. For example, if the geometry corresponds to a truss in a bridge, then a structural engineer could perform a stress analysis to determine whether the geometry is capable of withstanding certain expected loads. In parallel, an aerodynamicist could perform an aerodynamics simulation with the truss to determine whether the aerodynamic properties of the truss fall within the set of specifications.
The various analysis experts then propose changes to the geometry that would cause the geometry to better fit the specifications. Since the proposed changes are derived from the type of simulation performed, oftentimes, different analysis experts may propose different, and potentially competing, changes to the geometry. The designer then modifies the geometry in an attempt to satisfy the various changes proposed by the analysis experts. This process generally corresponds to a “design cycle” in a conventional design workflow. Many such design cycles may be required before a geometry is created that meets the set of specifications. Typically, this process is iterative and occurs as incremental modifications to the computer model drawn to represent the geometry.
One problem with this approach is that designers must rely on intuition and experience when drawing geometries because the spectrum of all possible design options is potentially infinite. Consequently, designers may be prone to rehashing old designs. A designer may intentionally start with a geometry derived from past experience, or may subconsciously create a model of a geometry that resembles a previous geometry. In either case, in novel situations with complex and unique requirements, those old designs may be sub-optimal. Since the old designs provide a starting point for the iterative process described above, that process is often limited by initial design choices. These difficulties are compounded by the fact that design changes proposed by the different analysis experts may contradict one another. Another problem with the approach described above is that, due to time constraints, only a finite number of design-analysis cycles are possible before the design must be manufactured and put into practice. As such, many sub-optimal designs may be finalized simply because the designer has run out of time.
As the foregoing illustrates, what is needed in the art is a more effective approach to creating geometry.